These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two

First post First post First post
Author
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3941 - 2015-03-22 13:25:51 UTC
flakeys wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:



Instead of turning Sov Nul into a part of New Eden that is driven by wars and ongoing conflict, they decided to go the opposite way and encourage large groups to get larger by introducing a sov system that is broken into multiple mini games which will require multiple fleets to maintain.

Any group not aligned with one of the large coalitions will only have sov as long as the large coalitions allow them to (large groups of bored members will make short work of any small unaligned group). We might even see new coalitions form as time goes on but with the ability to move about in nulsec limited by jump range and already established blue networks any new group trying to enter into the sov mini game will find the barriers to entry out way any possible benefits.





Yup TOTALLY not like how it has been for the last years , nope totally not.

I said it before , as long as you do not change the numbersgame you won't change the endresult.

As the French saying goes : plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose . Translated it means that the more things change, the more they stay the same.


It is normal that the biggest force has the upperhand a lot of the times but the amount of people we have been throwing on one bunch the last years is just ridiculous.

Sadly you are spot on, nothing will be the same, except the outcome.
And the really sad thing is, CCP has a golden opportunity to make valid and worthwhile balance changes with the new sov system and have chosen to take the easy way out.

Yes the whole way sov is taken and held is changing but will it change the way the sov game plays out. No it can't possibly do that because CCP is afraid of the big coalitions and the repercussions of upsetting them with valid / meaningful change.
CCP have lost control of all sovereignty aspects of the game and instead of trying to fix it, simply change it to make it seem different.
Bottom line is - Nothing will change.


My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
#3942 - 2015-03-22 13:32:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Xpaulusx
flakeys wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:



Instead of turning Sov Nul into a part of New Eden that is driven by wars and ongoing conflict, they decided to go the opposite way and encourage large groups to get larger by introducing a sov system that is broken into multiple mini games which will require multiple fleets to maintain.

Any group not aligned with one of the large coalitions will only have sov as long as the large coalitions allow them to (large groups of bored members will make short work of any small unaligned group). We might even see new coalitions form as time goes on but with the ability to move about in nulsec limited by jump range and already established blue networks any new group trying to enter into the sov mini game will find the barriers to entry out way any possible benefits.





Yup TOTALLY not like how it has been for the last years , nope totally not.

I said it before , as long as you do not change the numbersgame you won't change the endresult.

As the French saying goes : plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose . Translated it means that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
This new system is not intended to bust up the Huge Coalitions, its to provide entertainment for them. If you want to introduce Real Conflict to Null you must take away the reasons and incentives for them to exist. Regardless of this new system Null sec will remain a joke in its present state its is candyland, laughable at best untill CCP actual does does something about it. Hold your Breath.

It is normal that the biggest force has the upperhand a lot of the times but the amount of people we have been throwing on one bunch the last years is just ridiculous.


This new system is not intended to bust up the Huge coalitions, its to provide entertainment to the Blue Blocks. If you want to inject Real Conflict into null you must take away the incentives these Candyland Coalitions exist in the first place. Hold your breath.

......................................................

Elayae
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
#3943 - 2015-03-22 13:45:28 UTC
Hello, no I have not read all 197 pages, but most of them yes. P

The sov changes look like a really good set of rules, some of which need to be tweaked. However there is one big concern I have after seeing the fanfest presentation and other information channels about the subject:

A SCORCHED EARTH tactic would be quite devastating if implemented in some form by the larger alliances and coalitions. It could even lead to less pilots overall in zero sec.

Let me give an example:
A small group of pilots or an alliance want to make a small statement in zero sec space. They successfully gain sov in a system hurrah. The previous owner does not have to react immediately it can set up a scorched earth plan at a later date. It simply waits until some or a substantial investment is made into the new conquered sov and then strikes to whipe it from the board and set up minimal support for a new sov flag or even leave it empty. In this endless loop of forward and backward the smaller entity probably will lose eventually. Leaving the space void or only with flags and nothing else.

At this moment a number of those buffer zones exist already, buffer zones are quite common when high and low connect to zero directly. As no one wants an enemy at their doorstep so starbases are whiped out repeatedly creating a buffer zone at the borders.

Scorched earth tactic repeatedly targeting a sov area will turn out to be a war of attrition discouraging smaller groups to invest at all. The sole purpose of this is creating a buffer zone denying anyone who is not friendly that space.

If you cannot hold sovereignty yourself, well simply deny the enemy with scorched earth tactics.

-Ela

P.S. This is something I would do when I was a leader of such a large alliance or coalition and I bet it's on their agenda
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3944 - 2015-03-22 13:47:44 UTC
Trying to maintain 4 very different games (Empire, Lowsec, Nulsec and Dust) on 1 server is going to become a task even CCP can't manage, "balancing" certain aspects of game play to suit a minority, leaves the majority with less than ideal balance. Right now it is Nulsec that is being changed, not improved or fixed, just changed.

Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved
Failed, unless the goal was directed only at large groups

Goal #2: Clarify the process of taking, holding and fighting over star systems
Missed the mark because Goal 1 is not met for other than a few select groups.

Goal #3: Minimize the systemic pressure to bring more people or larger ships than would be required to simply defeat your enemies on the field of battle.
As long as armies of allies can be used to take sov, this is not going to happen.

Goal #4: Drastically reduce the time and effort required to conquer undefended space.
Pointless really as the only undefended space will be that which is not worth owning or defending.

Goal #5: Provide significant strategic benefits from living in your space.
Only if you belong to one of the major groups in viable space. The systems the large coalitions don't want will never be viable to live in as you will never get defensive indexes high enough to be of benefit. Yeah 4 or 5 years from now when CCP get around to balancing systems that may change but the upcoming release will see large tracts of unclaimed space because under the new system it will not be defensible.

Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New Eden’s varied geography and to better manage server load.
Don't know about New Edens varied geography, a system with a node in it is the same as the one next door, no matter what geography it has but if having 400 to 500 players in each of 6 or 7 adjoining systems playing the "capture the node" mini game will reduce server load, this goal may actually be met.

Goal #7: Any new Sovereignty system should be adaptable enough to be rapidly updated and to incorporate future changes to EVE.
Don't know if this will be possible without 1st fixing the overriding flaws with sov. This proposal overall does not address the fundamental issues surrounding sov, so any future changes will likely only add to the current bias.

Remove prime time or incorporate all aspects of sov into it. Removing stations from prime time breaks the prime time mechanic.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Angmar Udate
#3945 - 2015-03-23 00:55:58 UTC
Just here to throw my opinion on the pile.

Concern: alliance sets prime time to TZ other then my own, which would result in reduced content.
Concern: alliance consistently attacks another alliance which has their prime time set in a TZ other then my own. Again reduced content for me

It feels like the current proposal would force alliances to segregate according to TZ, perhaps forming sister alliances.


Some random not very thoroughly thought out thoughts.
* Perhaps it would help if it is possible to change the prime time easier.
* Assign multiple different prime times to different systems / constellations.
* Have alliances assign possibly disjunct 'primetime' blocks where the total number of primetime hours depends on the alliance size. Give each system / constellation a probability to be vulnerable during each hour of the assigned prime time blocks.
* Have EVE calculate an alliances' member activity histogram (some unspecified rolling average) and have each system have a probability of being vulnerable during an hour corresponding to the activity histogram of the alliance for that hour.
cconeus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3946 - 2015-03-24 12:30:23 UTC
Honestly CCP... What are you thinking?

Yes, structure grinding is boring. Yes, you need large ships to do so easily. But why this focus on smaller skirmish style warfare? I left the game for quite some time, and when I come back, the dreamland sandbox game I once knew has started to be boxed up like every other game on the market. You are interjecting quite harshly into what was once a free land, and not for the better.

As was stated in the post goals, "This also creates an artificial floor on the size of alliances or coalitions that can be successful in Sovereignty." There SHOULD be a floor size on the alliance or coalitions that can claim sov. It takes a lot of people working together to create and build the alliances capable of supporting such infrastructure, a lot of hours, and a lot of isk. There should be some renown with holding sov, it should not be something any 5 pilots can go do alone.

Even with this goal in mind, the entire system seems structured in a way that will ONLY allow large alliances to flourish. 5 guys for example cannot claim 10 nodes in 7 systems against 10 guys, they just don't have the numbers. That undermines your entire 'you gotta fight for it to get it' idea. Again, all of these goals so far have contradicted each other.

"Goal #6: Spread the largest Sovereignty battles over multiple star systems to take advantage of New Eden’s varied geography and to better manage server load."

Take advantage of New Eden's varied geography.... this sounds like a very thin excuse for the second part, which if your PR people were smart, wouldn't have brought our attention to in the first place. We are players, most of us do not care about your business practices or if your servers can handle it. We pay (300,000 active players x$20 a month) $6,000,000 a month to you to play your game, if after 12 years you still don't have the server capacity to support 30,000 active players at once, I'm super curious where our money is going (DUST514 *cough cough*).

As you also mentioned in the blog, "Huge clashes between empires have become one of the most iconic symbols of EVE’s uniqueness and a source of well-deserved renown both for the game itself and for the fleet commanders who lead these battles." Now you're making sense! This is one of the reasons I came back to Eve Online. After more than 3 years of being away, nothing compared to the experience I had playing this game, being in a system with 2200 people, hundreds of super caps, titans, battleships galore on the fields, fights everywhere, it was exhilarating. No other game can come close to matching the possibilities of what you guys have created here.

And now I return, and Eve seems a tired old shell of what it once was. Not entirely mind you, but it seems this little thing called Jump Fatigue seems to have killed any chance of me ever experiencing what made me fall in love with your game again. From what I hear from other players, I'm not alone on this, and its probably a subject that's been beaten to death by now. However, between the changes to jump fatigue, the changes to how sov is claimed, and to the type of fights you seem to be gearing this game towards, (that was supposed to be a open ended sandbox mind you) it seems to be moving entirely away from capital fights at all. Add in the upcoming changes to assigning fighters, and the above mentioned (and mentioned in several other places) complaints by you to us about the server lag issues, which I'm sure capitals play a large role in, it all starts to come together.

Now I don't know if this was intentional plotting against the people who pay you (because mind you, super cap pilots dont grow on trees, they grow slowly and pay you a lot of money to have their accounts long enough to fly one) or if this is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right one is doing, but it all adds up to this. You are eliminating the need for capitals entirely from the game.

If I wanted to shoot something small, I'd bring a small gun. If I want to take over a country, I bring my big guns. With these changes to sov, you will make it possible for quite some nasty things to happen. One, it seems people in high sec could easily just go reinforce systems, all the time, anywhere they felt like. These people typically play little role in nullsec sov in my very limited experience, however you are giving them a huge opportunity to start expanding. That may be good, of course it will lead to more fights for space potentially, however quite the headache for us players who have to now trek to 30 systems every day to wait for stuff to come out of reinforce, because anyone with 10 min to spare can swing by and screw something up.

So are you trying to shrink peoples holdings? Well, you may not achieve that goal. Remember, the largest alliances still do have a TON of players. On a given day, heck even in a 4 hour period during prime time, some of the largest alliances could very easily send out dozens of 5 man squads to go on a 2-3 hour rampage through space, laying waste to exposed systems, and generally causing havoc. There may end up being hundreds of systems being reinforced daily, but it may end up being done by one or two or three groups primarily. This may end up being that instead of increasing the amount of skirmish warfare you are so fond of, you instead stomp out any chance of legitimate small players holding space on their own, and forcing them to absorb into the borg.

In the end, it doesnt matter what the intentions were, or which way the cookie crumbles. It appears no matter what, its a system full of flaws, that I seriously hope you address before it is released. I hope if someone from CCP reads this, they keep just one thing in mind the rest of their career: This game is sandbox, and should be managed as hands off as possible. Let the players run free, see what happens. That was the original idea.
dreamgirl
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3947 - 2015-03-24 18:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: dreamgirl
i like this idea and gives smaller alliances a chance to hold space and make some money and what not. may improve the

market and industry and give more people the opportunity to experiance null sec industry.

pvp wise as a solo roamer i say awesome sauce.

pvp in general may be more interesting and im curious to see what eve players come up with to adapt.

also i like the idea of spreading fight out. but i got to thinking which is always a dangerous thing. ccp seems to keep alliances

focused on holding one system and making that benefit the alliance. and if you really wanted to spead things out maybe holding

sov over a constellation would make for a more interesting game play,spreading hard points across multiple systems with in a

certain close area. lots of possible tactics and losing one system does end the struggle. and also would please larger alliances

with high numbers that kinda need to spread out for money making opportunity. and makes allainces focus more on one area

and of course once sov is held in the constellation there should be rewards for that ofcourse . but you guys are the bosses and

ultimately we will continue to play this great game

thanks
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3948 - 2015-03-24 20:56:53 UTC
Anyone who thinks this will improve null sec industry needs to have his head examined.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Zifrian
Aideron Robotics
#3949 - 2015-03-24 22:09:56 UTC
I like some of the ideas (free porting is great) and others I'm not sure of. It seems a bit too complicated at times.

One thing I don't like though is the 'Prime Time', because it doesn't fit into a persistent universe. I realize it's realitic (alarm clock raids) but I don't see how it really has a place in the game when this is a very international game.

Wanting sov though is still a problem as well as null industry, so I'm not sure how you fix one without the other.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3950 - 2015-03-24 22:18:05 UTC
dreamgirl wrote:
i like this idea and gives smaller alliances a chance to hold space and make some money and what not. may improve the

market and industry and give more people the opportunity to experiance null sec industry.

pvp wise as a solo roamer i say awesome sauce.

pvp in general may be more interesting and im curious to see what eve players come up with to adapt.

also i like the idea of spreading fight out. but i got to thinking which is always a dangerous thing. ccp seems to keep alliances

focused on holding one system and making that benefit the alliance. and if you really wanted to spead things out maybe holding

sov over a constellation would make for a more interesting game play,spreading hard points across multiple systems with in a

certain close area. lots of possible tactics and losing one system does end the struggle. and also would please larger alliances

with high numbers that kinda need to spread out for money making opportunity. and makes allainces focus more on one area

and of course once sov is held in the constellation there should be rewards for that ofcourse . but you guys are the bosses and

ultimately we will continue to play this great game

thanks

No it removes the ability for small alliances to "hold" space. They may be able to take a system here and there the bloks don't want but as for their ability to hold it; that is down to the mega alliances allowing them to stay. No small group is going to be able to build industry levels up in low level sov, under current system settings it just can't be done.

Pvp wise as a solo roamer, I don't see much opportunity. What players will come up with? Multiple large fleets defending valuable space, small gangs from alliances roaming round reinforcing everything they can, for no other reason than, "they can". They won't wont the space for themselves and there is no need for them to turn up for "primetime" to destroy anything. Just keep reinforcing stations 24/7 and the small alliance who lives there will eventually just give up and leave.

Making sov a constellation/ region wide thing also removes much of the ability for a smaller unaligned alliance to hold space. So again this plays right into the hands of the bloks.
Such a smart idea to create conflict - Gear sov holding toward only the largest groups. Of course three or even 4 large groups are going to risk it all and fight each other; No there not, the leders of these bloks are smart enough to know you don't risk it by fighting someone who might beat you, so you make pacts and NAPS with them. Pretty much what happens now.

Many will not continue to play this game, especially as there are games in development who decided to copy what eve had done and create giant space sandboxes. Difference is, they are building games that will become giant sandboxes at the same time CCP is removing the sandbox element from Eve.
Sadly, I know of quite a few long time Eve players who are now playing LOL, WOT and other such things because Eve got boring!!!

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3951 - 2015-03-25 18:07:49 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
A modest proposal...

One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise.

In the proposed system, if I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff.

Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."

Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."

For the first 24 hours after the successful capture event, only the successful attacker can claim the structure - they can do so by activating an Entosis link on it (does not have to complete a cycle). Once captured, the structure belongs to that alliance and becomes vulnerable again during the next day's prime time for the capturing alliance. The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s]. If the successful attacker does not claim the structure within 24 hours, then the vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window).

Upon completion of a successful capture event, a vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].

Upon completion of a successful capture event, a vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure.

I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?

Advantages over the current proposal:
1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space.
2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure.
3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures.
4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction.
5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.

I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3952 - 2015-03-25 22:28:28 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
A modest proposal...

One of the things that has bothered me the most about the proposed sovereignty system is that it allows small, non-committal entities to destroy valuable things without committing very much of their own to the fight. With destructible stations coming SoonTM, this is particularly troubling. In light of that, I suggest the following compromise.

In the proposed system, if I go into your system and run my Entosis link on your I-Hub and you do not stop me by chasing me away or blowing up my ship, it generates the standard timers as proposed by Fozzie. Forty-eight hours later, we have the multi-node Entosis capture point battles (or you blue ball me). If I win, I keep my stuff.

Under the proposed system, "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure explodes and any alliance will be free to attempt deploying of their own replacement structures."

Now, here is my suggestion: "If the attackers win a capture event for a Territorial Claim Unit or Infrastructure Hub, then the structure becomes vulnerable to capture, theft, or destruction."

A vulnerable structure may be captured when any alliance/corporation runs one Entosis cycle on it, at any time (no prime time window). Once captured, the structure belongs to that alliance and becomes vulnerable again during the next day's prime time for the capturing alliance. The captured structure retains the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].

A vulnerable structure may be stolen when any player scoops the structure into the cargo hold of his ship. Structures too large to fit into a ship cannot be stolen. Once scooped, the structure loses the indices and other advantages earned by the previous owner[s].

A vulnerable structure can be destroyed at any time, provided someone is willing to shoot at it long enough or bring enough [big] ships to do the job quickly. While there are no reinforcement timers, the structures all have a significant amount of hit points. In the event of destruction, the structure loss mail will belong to the last alliance/corporation to own the structure.

I think that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?

Advantages over the current proposal:
1. It still gives attackers a way to make people undock and fight to defend their space.
2. It requires real commitment to actually destroy any structure.
3. It preserves a role for Dreadnoughts and other big ships in the destruction of structures.
4. It allows for more emergent gameplay and player interaction.
5. Assuming that some structures are the right size, it could allow for some interesting choices regarding Freighters and Jump Freighters.

I see no disadvantages of this system versus the current proposal.

Destructible stations under the currently proposed sov system, while it sounds good would kill sov nul quicker than any other change that has been proposed. 2nd only to removing local.

While your proposal is sort of interesting, it does not address the fundamental flaws in the current or proposed systems.

Moving any sov taking or holding activity outside the proposed "prime time" invalidates it completely.
Funny thing is, the only other game i play that uses a prime time mechanic, is trying to phase it out. Turns out it is easily abused by larger groups and no matter what sort of changes the devs made, large groups found ways to exploit them. Only large well funded and organized groups hold battle stations (like sov) and the systems they are attached to.




If an alliance RF's a structure whether it is defended or not, only that alliance should be allowed to contest for sov or just screw with the sov holders. Allowing any man and his dog to turn up and get involved removes the ability of smaller unaligned alliances to hold space. It also forces the members of coalitions to be responsible for their space.
If another alliance wants that space or to just screw with the owners, they can wait 48 hours until the current conflict is completed.


Current sov system requires large fleets to take sov due to structure grinding and extensive timers.
Proposed sov system will require large fleets to play and win mini games with all but set timers..

Both systems = He with most blues WINS.

As CCP is capping much of the sandbox with rules, why not cap alliance size and make each alliance responsible for its own space. Coalitions could still exist for trade and industry and even safe travel routes but when it comes to holding space, it should be the sov holder who is responsible not the coalition they belong to.

- - - - - - - - - - -
CCP isn't interested in what players think about the new sov system, they clearly have their own agenda. Right or wrong the proposed sov system will be the one going live and i imagine CCP already have the excuses for when it doesn't meet their proposed goals. All of which would be achievable with a little tweaking and a couple of hard decisions on CCP's part.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3953 - 2015-03-25 22:53:44 UTC
Yes, I figure that it is going live as is... We know that destructible stations are coming at some point. We know they intend to apply Entosis to all structures. We know they want to come up with something for capitals and supercapitals to do. It seems to me that my proposal is better than either the current system or the proposed system.

In case it wasn't clear, while I dislike the "prime time" - it is going to happen. My proposal would leave the "prime time" in place for the structure - until it has been Entosised and made vulnerable by the corresponding multi-node battle. Once the attackers win the multi-node battle, then the structure no longer has a prime time. It could then be captured, stolen, or destroyed by anyone.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Myrradah
Apotheosis of Caledvwich
Ex Cineres bonum Faustum
#3954 - 2015-03-25 23:06:55 UTC
Im not trying to be a negative Nancy here and I understand that this is a work in progress.

However, I fear that with what I have read so far, the dynamics may lead to creating bigger alliances.

If you get 5 capture nodes in a system in the defenders timezone, the easiest way to beat them is to get more friends to be in that constellation to catch all 5 nodes at the same time while blobbing the gages preventing movement etc for the defenders.

This obviously goes hand in hand with the known things in war - easier to defend than attack etc etc.

In addition, to get past the timezone issue, you are going to force alliances to get multiple corps (Get bigger) to cover multiple timezones.

So I have this fear that what the objective is wont be accomplished. Im not saying ti will, just that I can see this happening.

You guys at CCP are crafty - please be sure to account for this.

Thanks!
Myrr
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3955 - 2015-03-26 01:48:03 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Yes, I figure that it is going live as is... We know that destructible stations are coming at some point. We know they intend to apply Entosis to all structures. We know they want to come up with something for capitals and supercapitals to do. It seems to me that my proposal is better than either the current system or the proposed system.

In case it wasn't clear, while I dislike the "prime time" - it is going to happen. My proposal would leave the "prime time" in place for the structure - until it has been Entosised and made vulnerable by the corresponding multi-node battle. Once the attackers win the multi-node battle, then the structure no longer has a prime time. It could then be captured, stolen, or destroyed by anyone.

OK, maybe I am misreading something in the way this will all work but my understanding is; Once the mini game is won or lost the structure is won or lost.
Are you proposing another aspect be added to it all?

There is already a huge hole in the prime time concept because it does not include stations. Station services can be disabled at any time by anyone. I think that alone creates enough imbalance in the whole proposal without removing other structures from prime time.
If all structures can be captured or whatever outside prime time why have prime time?
If all structures are not included in prime time, why have it?

If CCP is intent on introducing strict 4 hour intervals of content, then it at least needs to be for all structures related to that type of content. Introducing a mechanic to standardize how something is done, then excluding the single most important structure from that mechanic just smacks of imbalance when looking at the goals of the new mechanic.

Under the new sov system, stations and moons are the only real content drivers. Moons of any value will be protected as they are now, possibly even better than they are now because coalitions will ensure they have enough bodies close enough to ensure there safety. Stations on the other hand can be RF'd by anyone who can activate an entosis link for a few minutes, at any time.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#3956 - 2015-03-26 03:44:26 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Yes, I figure that it is going live as is... We know that destructible stations are coming at some point. We know they intend to apply Entosis to all structures. We know they want to come up with something for capitals and supercapitals to do. It seems to me that my proposal is better than either the current system or the proposed system.

In case it wasn't clear, while I dislike the "prime time" - it is going to happen. My proposal would leave the "prime time" in place for the structure - until it has been Entosised and made vulnerable by the corresponding multi-node battle. Once the attackers win the multi-node battle, then the structure no longer has a prime time. It could then be captured, stolen, or destroyed by anyone.

OK, maybe I am misreading something in the way this will all work but my understanding is; Once the mini game is won or lost the structure is won or lost.
Are you proposing another aspect be added to it all?



Yes, I am proposing another aspect to it. Under the current proposal, the structure is automatically destroyed if the attacker wins the mini-game. In my proposal, winning the mini-game does not automatically destroy the structure - rather, it renders the structure vulnerable to being captured (via one last Entosis cycle), scooped (like any other loot floating in space), or destroyed (through the application of firepower).

The advantage I see in this versus the current proposal is that does not allow burning a system without committing real effort. You can still take someone's sovereignty flag away, destroy their indices, and loot their stuff, but actually blowing something up requires a commitment of some real firepower.

Maybe I am the only person in Eve who likes structure shoots? Always found besieging someone's stuff to be quite fun.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3957 - 2015-03-26 09:29:05 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Yes, I figure that it is going live as is... We know that destructible stations are coming at some point. We know they intend to apply Entosis to all structures. We know they want to come up with something for capitals and supercapitals to do. It seems to me that my proposal is better than either the current system or the proposed system.

In case it wasn't clear, while I dislike the "prime time" - it is going to happen. My proposal would leave the "prime time" in place for the structure - until it has been Entosised and made vulnerable by the corresponding multi-node battle. Once the attackers win the multi-node battle, then the structure no longer has a prime time. It could then be captured, stolen, or destroyed by anyone.

OK, maybe I am misreading something in the way this will all work but my understanding is; Once the mini game is won or lost the structure is won or lost.
Are you proposing another aspect be added to it all?



Yes, I am proposing another aspect to it. Under the current proposal, the structure is automatically destroyed if the attacker wins the mini-game. In my proposal, winning the mini-game does not automatically destroy the structure - rather, it renders the structure vulnerable to being captured (via one last Entosis cycle), scooped (like any other loot floating in space), or destroyed (through the application of firepower).

The advantage I see in this versus the current proposal is that does not allow burning a system without committing real effort. You can still take someone's sovereignty flag away, destroy their indices, and loot their stuff, but actually blowing something up requires a commitment of some real firepower.

Maybe I am the only person in Eve who likes structure shoots? Always found besieging someone's stuff to be quite fun.

I see the logic and don't mind the odd structure shoot (unless it is with Ishtars) but all in all it is removing more things from "prime time". It seems prime time is going to be a part of the new mechanics, removing some aspects of taking and holding sov breaks the whole concept of prime time.
You want to reduce someones indices, just have a few cloaky campers online around the clock.
No mining, no ratting = No indices. So simple, So exploitable. No effective counter.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Suede
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3958 - 2015-03-26 17:08:28 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
While the current sovereignty system worked fine for many years, we see the need for a fundamental overhaul.

We are excited to present the plans for a new sov system coming early this summer including:
1) No more grinding through hitpoints
2) Meaningful combat events distributed over the whole constellation
3) Space activity results in defensive bonus
4) Designated daily "Prime time" for alliances when their structures become vulnerable

Read all about this new sov system, the mechanics and the fine details in CCP Fozzie's latest blog Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two!


be nice if you add Delayed nullsec local, be nice to see how that will play out in eve
Aurumfault Shiptoaster
Blood Oath Foundation
GameTheory
#3959 - 2015-03-26 22:38:58 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

If an alliance RF's a structure whether it is defended or not, only that alliance should be allowed to contest for sov or just screw with the sov holders. Allowing any man and his dog to turn up and get involved removes the ability of smaller unaligned alliances to hold space. It also forces the members of coalitions to be responsible for their space.
If another alliance wants that space or to just screw with the owners, they can wait 48 hours until the current conflict is completed.


Unworkable. If only one alliance can contest, that alliance will be alts of the sov holder keeping everything permanently "contested" and completely impossible to take.
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
#3960 - 2015-03-26 23:14:23 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
You want to reduce someones indices, just have a few cloaky campers online around the clock.
No mining, no ratting = No indices. So simple, So exploitable. No effective counter.



The effective counter is to not dock up. Being active and ready/willing to fight is the counter. If nothing happens you win and if a fight happens it is content.

Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. Hunter S. Thompson